Tag Archives: History

The Father of Neo-Conservativism Dies

Posted on by
1

Had I known Irving Kristol was alive I probably would have attempted to email him to let him know that I thought he would go down in history books as the philosopher who doomed civilization as we know it.

Irving Kristol is the original and self-labeled “neo-conservative” and father to William Kristol, one of the most influential men in Republican politics despite having an impressive record at being wrong on every prediction and judgment that’s been offered up for public consumption. Irving Kristol started off as a Trotskyist but rejected that in the 30s for Liberalism, only to reject that in the 60s following the rise of the New Left. Yet his book “Neo-Conservatism” shows that the old man never left behind that Leninist love of controlling the minds of the masses. In it, he praises Machiavelli was the first great “post-Christian” philosopher. He laments the “tragedy of ‘Multiculturalism'” and pines for the America of the 30s, which he saw as “stronger” and “healthier” than the America of the 60s. You know, before blacks were allowed to go to white schools. His interest in banning pornography is not from a sense of religious zealotry but from the belief that strong nations are built on strong families, which is why he identifies with Orthodoxy (be it Jewish or Christian) over that of Gnosticism. It’s kind of scary reading someone who divides the world the same way you do only takes the opposite side.

Knowing this, it’s all the more revolting seeing how the Kristols so easily manipulated people whose beliefs are so different than their own. They’re former Marxists who tricked their sheep into accusing the center-left of “socialism,” Jews defining through Hannity and O’Reilly what it means to be a modern Christian, segregationists trying to claim that they are the party of Martin Luther King Jr. But it’s their own failed attempt at creating a “bedrock of bourgeois capitalism” (Irving’s words) that has brought about this economic crisis, their own self-delusion of Communist-style “liberation” propaganda that has trapped us in two decade-spanning wars, and their own “left-wing” ideology of cultural relativity that has allowed them to question global warming, arguing that it’s a “religion” even as they lead a resurgence of Creationism. When New York is flooded by the oceans in 2040, I’ll blame Irving Kristol, and probably curse William Kristol’s own lying brat, not realizing that the bastard who brought about so much misery in my own generation is still alive and culpable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8264260.stm

McCain Not Born in United States

Posted on by
1

This is pretty funny. McCain was born in a military hospital on the Panama Canal in U.S. jurisdiction! He had to be declared a “natural-born citizen” in 2008 in order to run for President! (The Senate did so unanimously.) After all this bitching and moaning about Obama not being a natural born citizen, and even assuming it’s true and Obama’s birth certificate and announcements of birth in 2 Hawaiian newspapers are all fake, he would still be just as legitimate as McCain. It doesn’t surprise me. It’s not like any of these people who are all of the sudden so concerned about the Constitution cared about it being broken by having Clinton being placed in a position she voted to raise the pay-grade for (but a lot of other people, both Democrat and Republican, did that, so I guess if you break the Constitution enough times, it doesn’t matter). I’m not saying McCain should have been barred from running, but it strikes home how hypocritical it is for the “Birther” movement to obsess over Obama not being born in the U.S. when the president they wanted was born in Panama. At least in Clinton’s case, the Constitution was barring someone based on their own actions and not on some inconsequential fate of history that really has nothing to do with the Presidential nominee himself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

Steve Milloy is an Evil Motherfucker

Posted on by
Reply

So someone decided to email me a book description of Green Hell by Steve Milloy because someone posted it as a reply to an article about the White House climate plans cost.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/03/24/white-house-ups-estimate-of-climate-plan-costs/

So who is Steve Milloy? Steve Milloy is one of the most evil motherfuckers on the face of the planet. He’s a corporate hack for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which funds his junkscience.com website, which of course is not accredited by any science organization in the world. His career was started in 1993 when Philip Morris created a phony citizens group to discredit EPA research showing the dangers of second-hand smoke, the Orwellian-named, “the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition.” Not only that, but he ALSO runs CSRWatch.com, which monitors and criticizes the corporate social responsibility movement — because if its one thing that’s brought about this financial crisis, it’s corporate social responsibility. But that’s not all. He ALSO campaigned on the 1972 ban on DDT by knowingly propagating the lie that millions would die from malaria despite the fact that it was only a nationwide ban. Don’t think he’s an evil motherfucker yet? Well he also blamed the Twin Towers falling on a ban on asbestos fireproofing. Are his deeds not yet vile enough that they should be compared to Oedipal psychosis? Well, he also runs the Free Enterprise Action Fund, which — get this — criticizes companies like Microsoft, General Electric, and even Business Roundtable (a pro-business organization of CEOs) for VOLUNTARILY adopting higher environmental standards. Well, you might say, at least it’s still legal, right? Actually, Slate magazine has done a report on how the “mutual fund” is really a lobbying enterprise set up to “broadcast their views on corporate governance, global warming, and a host of other issues.”

With a history like that of Steve Milloy, it’s a wonder if the dirty energy lobbyists hired him due to his proven track record of propagandizing abilities distinguished by a sizable death count.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/12/denier-industrial-complex-kooks-dicks-scream-czar-browner-is-a-socialist/

http://www.slate.com/id/2140997/

McCain’s Assassin Friend

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an excerpt from a MediaMatters article:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100015?f=h_top

Let’s start with Bill Ayers, since the news media have spent much of the week obliging McCain’s efforts to make him the focus of the campaign. As an activist in the 1960s — when Barack Obama was a young child — Bill Ayers was a member of the Weathermen, a group of radical activists who launched a series of violent demonstrations and bombings in protest of the Vietnam War. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and a school reform advocate. During Obama’s first campaign, Ayers hosted a coffee for him, and the two men have served together on the board of a school reform effort funded by a foundation chaired by Leonore Annenberg, who has endorsed John McCain. The New York Times concluded that Obama and Ayers “do not appear to have been close,” and Obama has denounced Ayers’ actions as a member of the Weathermen.

A search* of the Nexis database found that more than 4,500 news reports so far this year have mentioned Obama and Ayers — more than 1,800 this week alone.

Now: G. Gordon Liddy. Liddy served four and a half years in prison for his role in the break-ins at the Watergate and at Daniel Ellsberg’s psychologist’s office. He has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in “if necessary.” He plotted to kill journalist Jack Anderson. He plotted with a “gangland figure” to murder Howard Hunt in order to thwart an investigation. He plotted to firebomb the Brookings Institution. He used Nazi terminology to outline a plan to kidnap “leftist guerillas” at the 1972 GOP convention. And Liddy’s bad acts were not confined to the early 1970s. In the 1990s, he instructed his radio audience on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents (“Go for a head shot; they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests.” In case anyone missed the subtlety of his point, Liddy also insisted: “Kill the sons of bitches.”) During Bill Clinton’s presidency, Liddy boasted that he named his shooting targets after the Clintons.

What does Liddy have to do with the presidential election? As Media Matters has noted:

Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain’s campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy’s radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled, “John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07,” includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an “old friend.” During the segment, McCain praised Liddy’s “adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great,” said he was “proud” of Liddy, and said that “it’s always a pleasure for me to come on your program.”

McCain even backed Liddy’s son’s congressional bid in 2000 — a campaign that relied heavily on the elder Liddy’s history.

To sum up: John McCain is “proud” of his “old friend” Gordon Liddy — an old friend who plotted to kill one of the most respected journalists in American history, and who urged listeners to kill federal agents and advised them on how to do so. McCain campaigned for Liddy’s son, and Liddy has even hosted a fundraiser for McCain at his home.

So McCain’s relationship with Liddy is pretty much a direct parallel to Obama’s relationship with Ayers. Except that McCain and Liddy have apparently spent time together more recently than Obama and Ayers. And Liddy’s extremist activities continued well into the 1990s, at least. And Liddy says he and McCain are “old friends,” while The New York Times says Obama and Ayers aren’t close. And Obama has never said Ayers adheres to “the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great.” Other than all that, it’s a direct parallel.

Yet even as they obsess over Barack Obama and Bill Ayers — just as the McCain campaign tells them to — the news media have all but ignored John McCain’s close ties to Gordon Liddy. A Nexis search** finds fewer than 100 news reports that have mentioned McCain and Liddy this year.

As Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman — who has criticized Obama’s relationship with Ayers — has noted:

Liddy, now a conservative radio host, has never expressed regret for this attempt to subvert the Constitution. Nor has he developed any respect for the law. … Yet none of this bothers McCain. Liddy has contributed thousands of dollars to his campaigns, held a fundraiser for McCain at his home and hosted the senator on his radio show, where McCain said, “I’m proud of you.” Exactly which part of Liddy’s record is McCain proud of?

While Obama has gotten lots of scrutiny for his connection to Ayers, McCain has never had to explain his association with Liddy. If he can’t defend it, he should admit as much. And if he thinks he can defend it, let him.

To repeat:

* 2008 news reports that mention Obama and Ayers: more than 4,500.

* 2008 news reports that mention McCain and Liddy: fewer than 100.

Incredibly, The Atlantic’s Ambinder today suggests that the media have not covered Ayers: “To truly drive Ayers into the public conversation, to trick what they consider an irredeemably biased press corps into biting, McCain has three vehicles gassed up and ready to go. … So far, McCain has done none of those things.” There are 1,800 Nexis hits for Barack Obama and Bill Ayers in the past week, and yet Marc Ambinder thinks the media have not bitten on the Ayers “story” — and that McCain, who is running ads about Ayers, isn’t “really serious” about pushing it, anyway. Even Steve Schmidt would likely be too embarrassed to try to claim that the media have not covered Bill Ayers.

Incidentally, Ambinder doesn’t seem to have ever mentioned McCain’s relationship to Liddy.

Not only have the media avoided stand-alone reports on McCain and Liddy, they consistently fail to bring up the connection when reporting on McCain’s attacks on Obama’s ties to Ayers, or in interviews with McCain staff who bring up Ayers. The McCain/Liddy relationship is such an obvious parallel — except arguably much worse — that it’s hard to imagine how any evenhanded journalist could possibly justify ignoring it. Yet it happens again and again. And, needless to say, McCain aides do not get badgered about Liddy the way Time’s Mark Halperin badgered Obama aide Robert Gibbs about Ayers.

Just this morning, NBC’s Chuck Todd said he is “sure” Ayers will come up during the final presidential debate next week, adding that moderator Bob Schieffer “may feel no choice but to bring it up” in light of the “TV ads” the McCain campaign and Republican National Committee are running. Setting aside the absurdity of the suggestion that a debate moderator is compelled to bring up a topic simply because John McCain is running ads about it, if Schieffer does ask about Ayers, basic fairness demands that he ask McCain about Liddy as well.

OK … moving on. How about controversial religious figures? Earlier this year, Media Matters showed that The New York Times and The Washington Post had published a total of 161 articles, editorials, and opinion pieces that mentioned Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright — and only 12 that mentioned John McCain and John Hagee. That disparity wasn’t unique to the Times and the Post — and it hasn’t evened out over time.

161 to 12.

Land deals? Barack Obama once bought a parcel of land from a controversial donor named Tony Rezko. Obama paid more than the land’s assessed value — but that hasn’t stopped the news media from suggesting Obama had an improper relationship with Rezko.

Comparatively little attention has been paid to John McCain’s relationship with real estate developer Donald Diamond. Diamond, a co-chair of McCain’s campaign finance committee, has raised more than $250,000 for McCain’s presidential bid and is a “close personal friend” and longtime political patron. For his part, McCain has sponsored two bills sought by Diamond that helped the developer gain what The New York Times described as “millions of dollars and thousands of acres” of land. And McCain helped Diamond buy another parcel of land from the U.S. Army — a deal that helped Diamond turn a $20 million profit. The Washington Post and USA Today have identified other land deals McCain has facilitated as senator that have benefited some of his biggest donors and fundraisers.

Yet a Media Matters review last month found that five national newspapers had run a total of 39 articles, editorials, and opinion pieces that mentioned Obama and Rezko — but only seven that mentioned McCain and his donors’ land deals:

[S]ince The New York Times’ initial April 22 article [about McCain and Diamond], the land deals have been mentioned in only six additional news articles, editorials, or opinion pieces in the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, or The Washington Post, and have yet to be mentioned on any evening network news program. By contrast, during the same time period, 39 news articles, editorials, or opinion pieces in those papers have collectively mentioned Obama and Rezko; and the evening news broadcasts have collectively mentioned Obama and Rezko in five reports.

39 to 7.